[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3461-3467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 505. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide 
immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious 
behavior and response; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Lieberman, in introducing the See Something, Say Something Act 
of 2011.

[[Page 3462]]

  The number of thwarted and failed attacks in the past few years and 
the Fort Hood attack, which left 13 people dead and wounded dozens, are 
sobering reminders that terrorists continue to threaten our nation. We 
have seen, however, that an alert citizenry can be our first line of 
defense against terrorist attacks as evidenced by events only a few 
weeks ago in Texas.
  Tips from alert citizens led to an investigation and the eventual 
arrest of Khalid Aldawsari on a federal charge of attempted use of a 
weapon of mass destruction. Specifically, an alert chemical supplier 
reported Aldawsari's suspicious attempt to purchase a toxic chemical 
called phenol to the FBI. Shipping company personnel also notified 
local police officers about related suspicious behavior. Without these 
calls to law enforcement, it is possible that a person who wrote in his 
diary ``it is time for Jihad'' would have carried out an attack or 
attacks on his numerous intended targets, including dams, nuclear power 
plants, and former President George W. Bush.
  Individuals must be protected from frivolous lawsuits when they 
report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist 
activity. That is why I am again introducing legislation, along with 
Senator Lieberman, that will provide these important protections.
  In the 2007 homeland security law, Senator Lieberman and I authored a 
provision to encourage people to report potential terrorist threats 
directed against transportation systems. This legislation would expand 
those protections to reports of suspicious behavior in sectors other 
than transportation. For example, reports of suspicious activity could 
be equally important in detecting terrorist plans to attack ``soft 
targets'' like hotels, shopping malls, restaurants, and religious 
institutions.
  In December 2008, a Federal jury convicted five men from New Jersey 
of conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix. According to law 
enforcement officials, the report of an alert store clerk, who stated 
that a customer had brought in a video showing men firing weapons and 
shouting in Arabic, triggered their investigation. If not for the 
report of this vigilant store clerk, law enforcement may not have 
disrupted this plot against military personnel at Fort Dix. Real life 
examples like these highlight the need for this bill.
  That store clerk's action likely saved hundreds of lives. It reveals 
a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety 
depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and 
soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civic responsibility of 
all Americans. So we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to 
report suspicious activity whenever it occurs.
  As a result of the devastating 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Senator 
Lieberman and I convened hearings held by the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee to examine lessons learned from those 
attacks. These hearings helped bring to light the reality that 
terrorists might shift their attention from high-value, high-security 
targets to less secure commercial facilities, where there remains the 
potential for mass casualties and widespread panic.
  Many of the Committee's witnesses during these hearings endorsed the 
idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector. 
Indeed, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said that the 2007 law ``made 
eminently good sense'' and recommended ``that it be expanded [to other 
sectors] if at all possible.''
  The threat is real, and we must encourage citizens to be watchful and 
to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs. Our legal system, 
however, can be misused to chill the willingness of citizens to come 
forward and report possible dangers. As widely reported by the media in 
2006, US Airways removed 6 Islamic clerics from a flight after other 
passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of 
the their assigned seats and had requested, but were not using, seat 
belt extenders that could possibly double as weapons. In response to 
these concerns, US Airways officials removed these individuals from the 
plane so that they could further investigate.
  For voicing their reasonable fears that these passengers could be 
rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking, these concerned 
citizens found themselves as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit and 
accused of bigotry.
  The existence of this lawsuit illustrates how unfair it is to allow 
private citizens to be intimidated into silence by the threat of 
litigation. Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated 
that there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits 
fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.
  The bill we introduce today would provide civil immunity in American 
courts for any person acting in good faith who reports any suspicious 
transaction, activity, or occurrence related to an act of terrorism. 
Specifically, the bill would encourage people to pass on information to 
federal officials with responsibility for preventing, protecting 
against, disrupting, or responding to a terrorist act, or to Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement officials, without fear of being sued 
for doing their civic duty. Only disclosures made to those responsible 
officials would be protected by the legislation.
  Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for 
assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is 
required. If they take reasonable action to mitigate the reported 
threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should 
not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not 
discourage reasonable responses to them.
  Let me be very clear that this bill does not offer any protection 
whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to 
be false. No one will be able to use this protection as cover for 
mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.
  Our laws and legal system must not intimidate people into silence or 
prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting 
citizens who make good faith reports--and that's an important condition 
in this bill--of potentially lethal activities is essential to 
maintaining homeland security. Our bill offers protection in a measured 
way that discourages abuses.
  Each of us has an important responsibility in the fight against 
terrorism. It is not a fight that can be left to law enforcement alone. 
The police simply can't be everywhere all the time. Whether at a hotel, 
a mall, or an arena, homeland security and law enforcement officials 
need all citizens to alert them to unattended packages and behavior 
that appears out of the ordinary.
  Along these lines, I applaud DHS Secretary Napolitano for 
establishing the Department's ``If you see something, say something'' 
campaign and the recent partnerships with various organizations 
including the NFL. The Department is taking steps to expand this effort 
with public education and materials for businesses, communities, and 
citizens. As the Department's campaign continues to grow, there will be 
a greater need for this legislation as our citizens become better 
educated.
  The National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Town 
Watch, and other national organizations have endorsed this legislation.
  If someone ``sees something'' suspicious, Congress should encourage 
him or her to ``say something'' about it. This bill promotes and 
protects that civic duty. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 507. A bill to provide for increased Federal oversight of 
prescription opioid treatment and assistance to States in reducing 
opioid abuse, diversion, and deaths; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an 
important piece of legislation, the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act of 2011--an important bill that is needed to address 
the rapid increase in deaths and overdoses from methadone and other 
opioid prescription drugs in the United States. These deaths have

[[Page 3463]]

hit my home state of West Virginia particularly hard, but I know that 
every State is struggling with this serious problem.
  In the 111th Congress, Senator Corker and I, along with our 
colleague, the late Senator Kennedy, introduced the Methadone Treatment 
and Protection Act of 2009 a similar piece of legislation that stemmed 
from a disturbing rise in deaths due to methadone, a synthetic opioid 
prescription drug that had been increasingly used for pain management. 
Before 1990, it was used primarily to treat opioid addiction. Because 
of its high efficacy and low cost, methadone is frequently used for 
pain management. However, if not used correctly, methadone can be a 
powerful and deadly drug because it works differently than other 
painkillers. Methadone stays in a person's body for a longer period of 
time than the pain relief lasts so a person who does not know better 
might take far too much of the drug, possibly leading to respiratory 
distress, cardiac arrhythmia and even death.
  Methadone prescriptions for pain management grew from about 531,000 
in 1998 to about 4.1 million in 2006--nearly eightfold. During that 
time, poisoning deaths involving methadone increased nearly sevenfold, 
from almost 790 in 1999 to 5,420 in 2006. Deaths from other opioids 
have also skyrocketed in the last decade. And, these deaths may 
actually be underreported, because there is no comprehensive reporting 
system for opioid-related deaths in the United States.
  Overdoses from methadone are part of a larger disturbing trend of 
overdoses and deaths from prescription painkillers, or opioid drugs--a 
trend driven by a knowledge gap about how to treat serious pain in a 
safe and effective manner, by misperceptions about the safety of 
prescription drugs, and by the diversion of prescription drugs for 
illicit uses. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related 
emergency department, ED, visits of which nearly \1/2\, 45.1 percent, 
or 2.1 million, were attributed to prescription drug misuse or abuse, 
according to data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN. And, 
emergency department visits involving misuse or abuse of 
pharmaceuticals nearly doubled between 2004 and 2009, to over 1.2 
million visits.
  This bill begins to address these problems. First, with respect to 
the knowledge gap about safe pain management, the bill for the first 
time includes a training requirement for health care professionals to 
be licensed to prescribe these powerful drugs. Currently, the 
Controlled Substances Act requires that every person who dispenses or 
who proposes to dispense controlled narcotics, including methadone, 
whether for pain management or opioid treatment, obtain a registration 
from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. Unfortunately there is 
no requirement as a condition of receiving the registration that these 
practitioners receive any education on the use of these controlled 
narcotics, including methadone. Physicians struggle every day with 
determining who has a real need for pain treatment, and who is addicted 
or at risk. And yes, they struggle with our failure to provide adequate 
treatment facilities for those who are addicted. This bill will help 
physicians get the information they need to prescribe safely and better 
recognize the signs of addiction in their patients.
  Second, this bill addresses the knowledge gap among consumers--with a 
competitive grant program to states to distribute culturally sensitive 
educational materials about proper use of methadone and other opioids, 
and how to prevent opioid abuse, such as through safe disposal of 
prescription drugs. Preference will be given to states with a high 
incidence of overdoses and deaths.
  Third, this bill creates a Controlled Substances Clinical Standards 
Commission to establish patient education guidelines, appropriate and 
safe dosing standards for all forms of methadone and other opioids, 
benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse, appropriate 
conversion factors for transition patients from one opioid to another, 
and guidelines for the initiation of methadone and other opioids for 
pain management. A standards commission will provide much-needed 
evidence-based information to improve guidance for the safe and 
effective use of these powerful and dangerous controlled substances.
  Fourth, this bill provides crucial support to state prescription drug 
monitoring programs. As of 2008, 38 states had enacted legislation 
requiring prescription drug monitoring programs and many states were 
able to fund these initiatives in part from grants available through 
the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. A second 
program created in 2005 through the National All Schedules Prescription 
Electronic Reporting Act, NASPER, would provide even more assistance, 
and requires interoperability between states to reduce doctor shopping 
across state lines and diversion. Unfortunately, NASPER has only 
recently been funded with $2 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 
legislation and $2 million in fiscal year 2010.
  Here is just one example of why NASPER funding matters: recently, the 
governor of Florida announced a budget that would not fund a planned 
prescription monitoring program in his state, due to state budget 
difficulties. This directly affects states in Appalachia because of the 
rampant drug trafficking between the two regions. In fact, the road 
from West Virginia to Florida is so well-travelled by drug traffickers 
and people seeking pain medication that it has been renamed the 
``OxyContin Highway,'' and flights from Huntington to Florida have been 
nicknamed ``the Oxy Express.'' It is crucial to finally give NASPER the 
funding it needs, and this legislation would do so, with $25 million a 
year to establish interoperable prescription drug monitoring programs 
within each state.
  Finally, this bill would help solve the data gap when it comes to 
opioid-related deaths. Right now there is no comprehensive national 
database of drug-related deaths in the United States, nor is there a 
standard form for medical examiners to fill out with regard to opioid-
related deaths. Since there is no comprehensive database of methadone-
related deaths, the number of deaths may actually be underreported. In 
order to truly reduce the number of methadone-related deaths, quality 
data must be collected and made available. This bill would create a 
National Opioid Death Registry to track all opioid-related deaths and 
related information, and establish a standard form for medical 
examiners to fill out which would include information for the National 
Opioid Death Registry.
  Today we have an opportunity to change the harrowing statistics and 
stem the rising tide of deaths from methadone and other opioids by 
supporting the Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 
2011. This legislation provides a multifaceted approach to preventing 
tragic overdoses and deaths from methadone and other opioids. This is 
exactly what we need to improve the coordination of efforts and 
resources at the local, state, and federal level.
  I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of 
legislation. In doing so, we will be on our way to saving lives and 
reducing the needless deaths that otherwise will continue to cause so 
much suffering among the people of this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mr. Brown of 
        Ohio, Mr. Begich, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 510. A bill to prevent drunk driving injuries and fatalities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ROADS 
SAFE Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this 
legislation by my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker and 
7 other colleagues.
  This legislation will encourage the development of new tools to fight 
drunk driving. It has the potential to save 8,000 lives every year by 
ensuring

[[Page 3464]]

that no one celebrating Fat Tuesday or St. Patrick's Day--or at any 
other time of the year--drives home drunk.
  Tragic drunk driving crashes often prompt communities to more to 
prevent drunk driving. This was the case in my home State of New Mexico 
back in December of 1992. That is when a drunk driver killed a mother 
and her three girls on Christmas Eve. He was speeding down the highway 
90 miles an hour, going the wrong way down an interstate highway.
  This crash helped change attitudes in my State. I was the state 
Attorney General back then and I went after drunk drivers. I worked to 
impose stronger penalties for repeat drunk driver offenders, a lower 
legal limit for intoxication, and shut down drive-through liquor 
windows. I was successful in these efforts, in part, due to the new 
focus, throughout the state on eliminating drunk driving.
  We made progress in New Mexico on drunk driving, but we have a long 
way to go and it should not take yet another tragedy for us to do even 
more to prevent drunk driving.
  In 2009, drunk driving killed nearly 11,000 Americans, including 114 
people in New Mexico. That is an average of 30 people killed every day 
by drunk driving. This death toll is unacceptable. And it is all the 
more shocking when you consider that each one of those deaths was 
preventable.
  The United States has made significant progress in reducing drunk 
driving over the years. Compared to 20 years ago, our roads are much 
safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people killed on our 
highways has declined, drunk driving still accounts for about one-third 
of all traffic fatalities.
  It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2 percent 
chance of being caught. In fact, one study found that a first-time 
drunk driving offender has, on average, driven drunk 87 times before 
being arrested. Imagine, 87 times. Something must be done to prevent 
these drivers from getting on the road in the first place.
  The good news is there are potential technologies out there that 
could do just that, which is why Senator Corker and I are introducing 
the ROADS SAFE Act today. New safety technology has already transformed 
the automobile and saved countless lives. For example, airbags and 
antilock brakes are now standard features in many vehicles. These 
safety devices are built into the car and are unobtrusive to the 
driver. Such technologies are an important reason we have fewer traffic 
fatalities today.
  Imagine a future where vehicles could detect whether a driver is 
drunk when he gets behind the wheel--before he even starts his vehicle. 
That would mean no drunk driving crashes if it were impossible for 
drunk drivers to drive. If such technology were widely deployed in 
cars, approximately 8,000 lives could be saved every year.
  I realize many may think this is a farfetched idea. But consider 
this: vehicles today can already give driving directions, thanks to GPS 
satellite navigation devices. Some cars can even parallel park 
themselves. New Mexico and other states require convicted drunk drivers 
to use an ignition interlock, a breathalyzer device they blow into 
before their vehicle's engine will start. The success of ignition 
interlocks for preventing repeat drunk driving offenses suggests a 
better technology could be used to prevent all drunk driving.
  In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration partnered 
with leading automakers to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle 
technologies to prevent drunk driving. The Driver Alcohol Detection 
System for Safety Program--or DADSS--is a great example of how we can 
leverage federal funds with private investment to improve the safety of 
our transportation system. The goal of DADSS is to explore the 
feasibility, potential benefits, and public policy challenges 
associated with using in-vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving. 
The recent progress of this cooperative effort fuels optimism that such 
technology could be deployed within 5 to 10 years.
  Clearly, such advanced technologies must win widespread public 
acceptance in order to be effective. They must be moderately priced, 
absolutely reliable, and unobtrusive to sober drivers.
  Some of the industry groups will claim that this initiative is meant 
to stop all social alcohol consumption. They claim that you will no 
longer be able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. They are wrong. 
The aim is to stop drunk driving, not discourage responsible social 
drinking. If deployed the technology will be set to detect drunk 
drivers, those with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
  Development of this technology is also widely supported by the 
public, many of whom have a glass of wine with dinner. A recent 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety poll found that 64 percent of 
Americans believe advanced alcohol detection technology is a good idea 
and that it is reliable.
  So, what would the ROADS SAFE Act do? This legislation would 
authorize $12 million annually for the DADSS program. This is not new 
spending. Funding for this program would come from the existing, and 
often unspent, Seat Belt Incentive grants program.
  This is a smart investment in public safety. In addition to the human 
costs, drunk driving also has direct and indirect economic costs. Those 
include damaged property, medical bills, and lost productivity. In 
economic terms, drunk driving costs $129 billion dollars per year. Of 
course, such monetary costs cannot be compared to the value of saving 
8,000 lives every year.
  Several organizations dedicated to fighting drunk driving already 
support this bipartisan proposal. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the 
Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits Council all have signed on 
in support of the ROADS SAFE Act.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Corker, and these 
important organizations in the fight against drunk driving. We urge you 
to support the ROADS SAFE Act. We have made much progress in our 
efforts to prevent drunk driving, but there is so much more to be done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 510

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Research of Alcohol 
     Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities 
     Everywhere Act of 2011'' or the ``ROADS SAFE Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities represent 
     approximately \1/3\ of all highway fatalities in the United 
     States in a given year.
       (2) In 2009, there were 10,839 alcohol-impaired driving 
     fatalities.
       (3) An estimated 9,000 road traffic deaths could be 
     prevented every year if alcohol detection technologies were 
     more widely used to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from 
     operating their vehicles.
       (4) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
     partnered with automobile manufacturers to develop alcohol 
     detection technologies that could be installed in vehicles to 
     prevent drunk driving.
       (5) Alcohol detection technologies will not be widely 
     accepted by the public unless they are moderately priced, 
     absolutely reliable, and set at a level that would not 
     prevent a driver whose blood alcohol content is less than the 
     legal limit from operating a vehicle.

     SEC. 3. DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY RESEARCH.

       Section 410 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Driver Alcohol Detection System.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall carry out a 
     collaborative research effort under chapter 301 of title 49 
     to continue to explore the feasibility and the potential 
     benefits of, and the public policy challenges associated 
     with, more widespread deployment of in-vehicle technology to 
     prevent alcohol-impaired driving.
       ``(2) Report.--The Administrator shall annually submit a 
     report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives that--
       ``(A) describes progress in carrying out the collaborative 
     research effort; and
       ``(B) includes an accounting of the use of Federal funds 
     obligated or expended in carrying out that effort.

[[Page 3465]]

       ``(3) Application with other laws.--Nothing in this 
     subsection may be construed to modify or otherwise affect any 
     Federal, State, or local government law (civil or criminal), 
     with respect to the operation of a motor vehicle.
       ``(4) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $12,000,000 of any amounts made available to the 
     Secretary under section 406 for each of the fiscal years 2012 
     through 2016 shall be made available to carry out this 
     subsection in place of any other amounts that are otherwise 
     available to carry out this section.
       ``(B) Limitation.--No amount of funding shall be made 
     available under this paragraph for any fiscal year in which 
     no funds are made available to carry out any program 
     authorized under section 406.''; and
       (3) in subsection (j), as redesignated--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (4), respectively;
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Alcohol-impaired driving.--The term `alcohol-impaired 
     driving' means operation of a motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30102(a)(6) of title 49) by an individual whose blood 
     alcohol content is at or above the legal limit.''; and
       (E) by inserting after paragraph (5), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(6) Legal limit.--The term `legal limit' means a blood 
     alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater (as 
     specified by chapter 163 of this title) or such other 
     percentage limitation as may be established by applicable 
     Federal, State, or local law.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 513. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide 
enhanced penalties for marketing controlled substances to minors; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with 
Senator Grassley, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2011.
  For years, law enforcement has seen drug dealers flavoring and 
marketing their illegal drugs to entice minors, using techniques like 
combining drugs with chocolate and fruit flavors, and even packaging 
them to look like actual candy and soda. This bill would address this 
serious and dangerous problem by providing stronger penalties when drug 
dealers alter controlled substances by combining them with beverages or 
candy products, marketing or packaging them to resemble legitimate 
products, or flavoring or coloring them with the intent to sell them to 
minors.
  Recent media reports demonstrate the need for this legislation. The 
Santa Cruz Sentinel had an article earlier this month about someone who 
is planning to market sodas laced with THC, the psychoactive component 
in marijuana. Some of his planned sodas include orange-flavored 
``Orange Krush'' and grape-flavored ``Grape Ape'' which actually was 
the name of a children's cartoon character!
  Regrettably, this is a problem that has persisted for many years, 
with drug dealers trying various methods of luring kids to try many 
dangerous drugs. For example, in March of 2008, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, DEA, agents seized cocaine near Modesto, California, 
that had been flavored like cinnamon, coconut, lemon and strawberry.
  Similarly, there have been many incidents involving methamphetamine. 
In a 2007 article entitled Flavored Meth Use on the Rise, USA Today 
stated that ``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging 
around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention 
experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''
  The size and sophistication of some of these operations is 
particularly alarming. In March of 2006, DEA discovered large-scale 
marijuana cultivation and production facilities in Emeryville and 
Oakland, California. Thousands of marijuana plants, and thousands of 
marijuana-related soda, candy, and other products were seized from the 
drug dealers' facilities. The products were designed and packaged to 
look like legitimate products, including an item called ``Munchy Way'' 
candy bars.
  Current law already provides an enhanced penalty if someone 
distributes drugs to a minor. Under this provision, the maximum 
sentence for the underlying distribution offense is doubled, and 
tripled if it is a repeat offense.
  Similarly, this bill would provide an enhanced penalty in those 
situations where drug dealers are altering controlled substances in 
ways that could make them more appealing to minors. Someone who is 
altering a controlled substance in ways prohibited by the legislation 
would be subject to a penalty of up to ten years, in addition to the 
penalty for the underlying offense. If someone commits a second offense 
prohibited by the act, they would be face an additional penalty of up 
to 20 years.
  This bill sends a strong and clear message to drug dealers--if you 
flavor or candy up your drugs to try to entice our children, there will 
be a very heavy price to pay. It will help stop drug dealers from 
engaging in these activities, and punish them appropriately if they 
don't.
  The Senate passed a similar version of this legislation in the last 
Congress, but it was not considered in the House.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 513

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Kids From Dangerous 
     Drugs Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. OFFENSES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MARKETED TO 
                   MINORS.

       Section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     841) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Offenses Involving Controlled Substances Marketed to 
     Minors.--
       ``(1) Unlawful acts.--Except as authorized under this 
     title, including paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any 
     person at least 18 years of age to knowingly or intentionally 
     manufacture or create, with intent to manufacture, create, 
     distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance listed in 
     schedule I or II that is--
       ``(A) combined with a beverage or candy product;
       ``(B) marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage 
     or candy product; or
       ``(C) modified by flavoring or coloring the controlled 
     substance with the intent to distribute, dispense, or sell 
     the controlled substance to a person under 18 years of age.
       ``(2) Penalties.--Except as provided in section 418, 419, 
     or 420, any person who violates paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection shall be subject to--
       ``(A) an additional term of imprisonment of not to exceed 
     10 years for a first offense involving the same controlled 
     substance and schedule; and
       ``(B) an additional term of imprisonment of not to exceed 
     20 years for a second or subsequent offense involving the 
     same controlled substance and schedule.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     controlled substance that--
       ``(A) has been approved by the Secretary under section 505 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355), 
     if the contents, marketing, and packaging of the controlled 
     substance have not been altered from the form approved by the 
     Secretary; or
       ``(B) has been altered at the direction of a practitioner 
     who is acting for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual 
     course of professional practice.''.

     SEC. 3. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, 
     United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall review its 
     guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the 
     guidelines provide an appropriate additional penalty increase 
     to the sentence otherwise applicable in Part D of the 
     Guidelines Manual if the defendant was convicted of a 
     violation of section 401(h) of the Controlled Substances act, 
     as added by section 2 of this Act.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Feinstein, in cosponsoring the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs 
Act of 2011. I believe we have an ongoing moral obligation to ensure 
our young people have every opportunity to grow up without being 
accosted by drug pushers at every turn, whether on TV, in the movies, 
or on the way to school.
  This bipartisan legislation--which has previously passed the Senate 
with unanimous consent--comes in response to ongoing warnings issued by 
the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA,

[[Page 3466]]

and the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, 
about highly addictive and dangerous drugs being colored, packaged, and 
flavored in ways that appear to be designed to attract use by children. 
As ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and cochairman of 
the Senate Drug Caucus, I can tell you that the most at-risk population 
for drug abuse is our young people. Sadly, recent youth surveys are 
indicating youth drug use is increasing. Research has shown time and 
again that if you can keep a child drug free until they turn 20, 
chances are very slim that they will ever try or become addicted to 
drugs. Unfortunately, unscrupulous drug dealers are all too aware of 
statistics like these and have developed new techniques and marketing 
gimmicks to lure in younger users. As a parent and grandparent, this is 
extremely troubling.
  Drug dealers are now flavoring and disguising drugs to make them 
appear and taste like candy. For instance, some drugs that have been 
recovered by the DEA and local law enforcement have been flavored to 
taste like strawberry and are known on the street as ``Strawberry 
Quick.'' Other flavors, such as lemon, coconut, cinnamon and chocolate 
are clearly being used to make highly addictive drugs like meth and 
cocaine seem less harmful and more appealing. Soft drinks are also 
being laced with THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and marketed 
with names like ``Canna Cola'' and ``Doc Weed.'' Law enforcement has 
also recovered drugs that have unique designs which could be appealing 
to children. For example, Ecstasy pills imprinted with President 
Obama's likeness or with images of popular cartoon characters have been 
seized in raids. These flavored and disguised drugs are also being 
marketed in smaller amounts, making it cheaper and more accessible to 
children. According to an article in USA Today, at least 8 States have 
reported instances involving candy flavored drugs, and many law 
enforcement officials are expecting these deadly substances to 
infiltrate their States in the near future.
  The DEA has made an effort to stop these practices. For example, the 
DEA arrested three men in an undercover operation in California where 
candy flavored cocaine was being distributed. The DEA seized at least 
four different flavors of cocaine along with other dangerous 
substances. The estimated street value of the flavored cocaine seized 
in this operation was $272,400. The DEA also arrested 12 people in 
connection to a marijuana-laced candy and soft drink operation in 2006. 
The marijuana-laced candy that was seized in this operation was 
packaged to look like well known brand name candy bars. These drug 
busts further illustrate the fact that drug dealers will stop at 
nothing to hook a new generation on these deadly substances.
  Currently, Federal law enhances the criminal penalties that apply 
when a person sells drugs to anyone under the age of 21. When this 
occurs, the Federal penalties are doubled--or tripled for a repeat 
offense--and a mandatory minimum of at least 1 year must also apply. 
However, this penalty applies only to someone who actually sells drugs 
to someone under 21.
  The Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act would increase the prison 
sentence to anyone who knowingly or intentionally manufactures or 
creates with the intent to distribute a controlled substance that has 
been flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is 
designed to make it more appealing to a person under 18 years of age. 
The DEA busts are prime examples of why we need this bipartisan bill to 
keep drug dealers from peddling their poison to our children.
  The fight against deadly drugs is an ongoing struggle. In light of 
the fact that youth drug use is increasing we must do all we can to 
protect the most vulnerable among us. We must send a clear message to 
those wishing to prey on our youth that you risk serious prison time 
when you target our future.
  Although this bill was passed out of the Senate unanimously in 2010, 
the House never passed the bill in the 111th Congress. I ask that my 
colleagues join us again in support of this important legislation and 
pass the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act, and I encourage the 
House of Representatives to take up this important bill and help remove 
these dangerous candy flavored drugs from our communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Akaka)
  S. 514. A bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to 
provide that fathers of permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall 
be included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
treatment in the civil service; to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the sacrifices of military families all too 
often go unrecognized. For every one of the 186,000 troops currently 
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a family that patiently 
waits for their servicemember's safe return. There are countless wives 
and husbands, separated by a deployment, who celebrate anniversaries 
over email and deployed parents who see their children age in 
photographs. None of these military families ask for recognition, but 
their sacrifices deserve our respect.
  I am pleased by the President and First Lady's recent efforts to 
recognize the challenges facing military families. Their leadership on 
this issue will help ensure that all agencies and departments of the 
Federal Government will lend a hand to servicemembers, veterans, and 
their families.
  Our Nation asks a lot of military families. Military families must 
provide support in innumerable ways during a deployment. From child 
care, to paying bills, dealing with legal issues and household repairs, 
military families work together to deal with the absence of the 
servicemember. Should a servicemember return home wounded or weakened 
by the tolls of war, we ask military families to help take care of 
their son or daughter, husband or wife.
  We hope and pray that all those who are sent to war will return 
safely to the arms of their loved ones. However, we know that this is 
not always the case. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, 
there have been far too many funerals of talented and patriotic 
Oregonians who have died in service to their country.
  Although nothing the Government can do will ever make up for the loss 
of a loved one, we do extend certain benefits to the parents of those 
who are killed in war. Today, along with Senators Lieberman, Collins, 
Akaka, I am introducing the Gold Star Fathers Act to update one of 
those benefits; the preferences for Federal hiring to ensure that the 
parents of fallen servicemembers have no barriers to Federal service.
  The Office of Personnel Management currently allows unmarried mothers 
of fallen soldiers to claim a 10-point veterans' preference when 
applying for Federal jobs. The Gold Star Fathers Act would simply 
extend this preference to unmarried fathers of fallen soldiers. This 
legislation will expand opportunities for Gold Star families to bring 
their dedication, compassion, and patriotism to the Federal Government. 
It is my hope that this legislation can be passed quickly.
  These Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Fathers have sacrificed more 
than we as a country can ever hope to repay. All we can ever hope to do 
is to ensure that these sacrifices are never made in vain.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 514

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gold Star Fathers Act of 
     2011''.

     SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
                   PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

       Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page 3467]]

       ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or her life 
     under honorable conditions while serving in the armed forces 
     during a period named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section, 
     if--
       ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently 
     disabled; or
       ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
     unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
     spouse;
       ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently and 
     totally disabled veteran, if--
       ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently 
     disabled; or
       ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
     unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
     spouse; and''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________